Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)

Once again, I will table an amendment today to retain juries. They are vital in defamation cases in the High Court. I want to be clear about why I think they are important. There is a lot in this Bill that deserves support, such as the anti-SLAPP measures, which are welcome and necessary. Protecting people who speak out in the public interest is a step in the right direction, but a provision in Part 3 is very serious, namely, the decision to scrap juries in defamation trials entirely. Section 4 removes the right to a jury in every future defamation case brought in the High Court - not in some cases, but in all of them. From the day this provision kicks in, that right disappears. We should not sugar-coat what that means. It is the removal of a long-standing public safeguard from the justice system.

A few weeks ago, I met the former High Court judge Bernard Barton. Mr. Justice Barton had previously come to Leinster House, sat in the audiovisual room, presented to TDs and Senators and laid out a very clear warning about the dangers of removing juries from cases. The advocacy to retain juries has come from those without an agenda. They have spent their entire working lives in the courts and have told us in no uncertain terms that removing juries is a dangerous mistake. We know that judges tend not to get involved in debates like this, so for them to step forward, write to us and come in person says something and we would be foolish not to listen.

We keep hearing the argument that jury trials cause delays or lead to unpredictable results but that is simply not true anymore. Whatever problems existed were addressed in the Higgins case where the Supreme Court laid out clear guidance on how juries should operate in defamation trials. The idea that this is still a problem does not reflect reality.

We are also told that removing juries will make the system more efficient, but there is no data to back this up. When juries were removed from personal injury cases in the UK, it did not speed anything up. In fact, some cases took longer. If delays are the issue, let us talk honestly. Ireland has one of the lowest number of judges per head of population in Europe. This is the problem, not juries.

Beyond logistics and efficiency, this comes down to something deeper, namely, public trust in the justice system. Juries are one of the last remaining ways ordinary people can actually take part in legal decisions. They bring their experience, perspective and values into the courtroom. In defamation cases, when someone's good name and reputation are on the line, this clearly matters now more than ever. The truth is that the Judiciary still does not reflect the full diversity of Irish society. That is just a fact. Until this changes, juries provide balance. They make sure that people are not judged solely by a professional class that does not always reflect the country as a whole. Jury trials in defamation cases go all the way back to Magna Carta. They still exist in the UK, the US, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. If we get rid of them here, we will not be catching up. Rather, we will be stepping outside the line of comparable legal systems.

It is pertinent to point out again that the Minister himself spoke in the past about the abolition of juries in defamation cases. I agreed with that stance at the time and I still do. Supporting this amendment, which many of us are supporting, would reflect that same principle. The Bill already brings in some reforms, including the anti-SLAPP protections, clearer defences and a more structured approach to damages. These are really good changes and will make a difference, and they should be given the chance to work. However, there is no good reason to push forward and remove juries on top of that. This is not some tiny, procedural tweak. It is a major shift in how justice is done, and once juries are gone, they are gone for good. That part of public involvement in justice will be gone, too. We will have handed over total control of these cases to a judicial system that, however skilled or fair, does not represent the public in the exact same way. We will have done it with no real justification and no evidence to support it.

I am asking the Minister and other Members to think hard about this, not just about the headlines or the briefings but about what kind of justice system we are building. This is not about speeding things up. Rather, it is about fairness, so I want to support the amendments that maintain jury trials in defamation cases and all cases. We need to keep juries and keep the people at the heart of democracy.

There is much in this Bill that is very worthwhile and there is a lot that I would like to support. However, once we push beyond the line of removing juries from cases, what is next? A trial by one's peers is a fundamental part of all democracies. Removing it is a step that goes beyond the line that most of us are willing to tolerate. I would love to support many aspects of the Bill, as it has many worthy parts. Oireachtas committees have commissioned reports and people across the political spectrum have spoken about the ideal of maintaining juries. To remove them at this point is unfair. It is unbecoming of a modern democracy. It is not in keeping with where we have developed from, going on from the Higgins case. This is something the Minister can do that would make a real difference. I understand that we have had this debate previously and I understand the position the Minister took on the programme for Government, but I also think there is a time for leadership and a scenario like this will demonstrate it.

See this speech in context